22 October 2011 10:01 PM

This is no SuperCam - just Ted Heath Mk 2 (... complete with his own Thought Police)

This is Peter Hitchens’ Mail on Sunday column

Two Tory MPs are so scared of David Cameron’s pro-EU thought police that they have hidden their identities when giving radio interviews on the subject.

One said that wanting to leave the EU was ‘the love that dare not speak its name’. The other attacked Mr Cameron’s broken pledge for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Both knew that the Tory whips would destroy them if their names became known.

So their words were spoken by actors, as if they were dissidents in some foreign dictatorship.

This extraordinary behaviour, broadcast on BBC Radio 4’s ultra-respectable Analysis programme, tells you all you need to know about the Conservative Party’s real position on Brussels, and plenty of other things.

For of course, this isn’t just about boring old Brussels. The EU is symbolic of all the other great issues that divide Mr Cameron from Tory voters – mass immigration, crime, disorder, education, marriage and morals.

I have known since I first spotted him trying to weaken the anti-drug laws that Mr Cameron was not a conservative. I have spoken to former colleagues who have concluded that he believes in nothing at all, but I think it is much worse than that. I think he is an active, militant elite liberal, who despises our country and its people, just as much as any Islington Marxist does.

What I could never understand was how so many men and women with the usual complement of eyes, ears and brains (and nostrils) managed to fool themselves so completely about him.

How many times did I read weighty commentators (weighty because of the huge number of lunches they had eaten with their political insider chums) proclaiming that Mr Cameron was a ‘sound Eurosceptic’? Or that he had ‘deep conservative instincts’? I seem to remember one such even praising his cricket.

Well, it was bunkum and balderdash, wasn’t it? I wouldn’t know about his cricketing skills, but his performance on the EU issue has been dishonest and treacherous from the start.

I still remember the look of rabbit-like fear on his smooth face on the day he broke his pledge of a Lisbon referendum. He was too cowardly to take a question from me, while that pathetic burst balloon, William Hague, sat silent in the front row of the press conference, endorsing his chief’s poltroonery.

But still the Tory loyalists wouldn’t see it, fooling themselves with a babyish dream that Mr Cameron had a secret plan, that once in office he would tear off his outer garments and reveal himself as SuperCam, a real patriot and conservative.

Well, now he has torn off his outer garments, ordered his cringing followers to vote against an EU referendum and revealed that he is in fact the reincarnation of Ted Heath, the man who betrayed Britain to Brussels and got his way by bullying and shameless dishonesty.

Nobody is making him do this. It is his own true self speaking. I told you so. I was right. And I am now enjoying myself telling you again.

But when will you do anything about it?

New Libya, same bloody way of doing business

Colonel Gaddafi was cruelly murdered by a mob. This disgusting episode, which no decent person can approve of, is typical of the sordid revolution which our Government has decided to endorse and aid.

Nearly as bad, most of our media reported the barbaric spectacle in gleeful tones. God preserve them from ever being at the mercy of a lynch mob themselves is all I can say.

Shame, also, on those who referred to this squalid crime as an ‘execution’. Why is this word these days applied to its opposite? An execution follows lawful due process. It is not another word for a gang slaying or a lynching, such as happened to Muammar Gaddafi.

Any new state that begins with such an event will be poisoned and polluted by it ever afterwards, just as the communist world was blighted by the Bolshevik massacre of the Russian imperial family in 1918.

The nebulous new Libyan regime is already torturing its prisoners, who in many cases have been seized without formal legal procedure. From now on, all those who supported this ill-advised intervention will share responsibility for every lynching, whipping, unjust detention and miserable dungeon in the New Libya they helped to make.

Doesn’t anyone know any history? The day that Colonel Gaddafi overthrew King Idris in 1969, Tripoli was full of rejoicing crowds, no doubt similar to those who celebrate today.

* * *

I am pleased to say that a planned march against immigration in Boston, Lincolnshire, has been called off. The organisers rightly feared that it would be taken over by sinister and creepy factions.

It occurs to me - though of course it isn’t true - that if MI5 wanted to discredit any honest movement against mass immigration, the cleverest thing it could do would be to set up something called, say, the ‘British Patriotic Party’, and staff it with Jew-haters, racialists and Holocaust deniers.

And then these people could latch on to every decent protest and wreck it.

By contrast, look at what is happening in Switzerland. There, a mainstream political party isn’t ashamed to oppose mass immigration on perfectly civilised and reasonable grounds.

The Swiss are on course for a referendum that will almost certainly vote to close their borders after a failed experiment with leaving them wide open.

Drugs wreck lives: A lesson Mr Dodgeon's finally learned

If you doubt the terrible dangers of illegal drugs, look at the miserable fate of Brian Dodgeon.

Mr Dodgeon, pictured right, calls himself ‘an old hippie’. He is an academic and former social worker. He is all too typical of the demoralised English middle class, a type of liberal bigot common in the media and among teachers and social workers.

In their tens of thousands, they fried their brains with dope in the Sixties and Seventies, so becoming even more stupid than they already were.

Now they form a noisy, powerful lobby against proper enforcement of the drug law today, lying that there is a ‘war on drugs’. Ha ha.

If only there were such a war, a schoolgirl might not have died after taking drugs Mr Dodgeon had left in his house during a teenage party. And he himself might not have been badly injured later while trying to end his life by jumping from a flyover.

Thanks to his selfishness and stupidity (the man is 61 years old), all these things happened.

No doubt the drugs lobby will try to put the blame elsewhere. They will be wrong to do so. As it happens, I am rather sorry for Mr Dodgeon, whose pitiable attempt at suicide shows that he has suffered true remorse.

But I am not sorry for the rest of his generation of idiots, who by their own bad example and irresponsibility - and by their unceasing calls for weaker drug laws - are endangering the health and even the lives of today’s young.

* * *

I don't normally think of Dame Joan Bakewell as an ally in my campaign to re-moralise Britain. I tend to feel she did her bit to de-moralise it in the Sixties. But I think she should be praised for pointing out what is missing in our country.

She said: ‘Religious commitment to charity and kindness has declined. Nobody learns that. They don’t learn it in their homes, they don’t learn it in their school, it’s seen as soft. It’s not what you’re about.

'You’re meant to stand up for your own individual personality, make your way in the world and good luck to you. Kindness, empathy, generosity are all in short supply and people used to learn it from the churches – I learnt it at Sunday school. Where do you learn it now? I don’t know.’

Nor do I.

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

As a bankrupt nation after the second world war it took us fifty years (2006) to pay off our debts to the USA (Lend-Lease). What's wrong with Greece paying its debt back over the next fifty years? The UK was bust defending its country and eventually helping to repatriate Europe from the Nazis unlike Greece who fudged its way into the euro then bankrupted itself with the biggest ever credit card in history. With the EU never having signed off its annual budget it is no surprise they had no checks on the Greek economy? Or am I just a wee bit thick.

On the issue of religion and culture, cathedrals and art above, Mr H might like to know that Kelloggs and Mars have now signed up to Halal compliance. This means that their UK and Bremen factories are inspected by Islamic religious supervisors to ensure Halal Koranic rules are kept in contents and manufacture. A logo of halal compliance is accorded by the Islamic authority, which is paid fees for this service. So when you next eat your cereals or mars bars, remember you are donating to conservative Islam.
Contrariwise, we hear that meat killed by Halal law, unstunned in contravention of our normal animal welfare legislation, is NOT to be labelled as such, so we just don't know if it is cruelly slaughtered. Why not?
So our culture is indeed being Islamified, but you won't hear this on the BBC, whose video by Tim Harford to say that Europe is not being Islamified is now patently untrue and needs drastic revision to avoid the charge of propaganda.

'You’re meant to stand up for your own individual personality, make your way in the world and good luck to you. Kindness, empathy, generosity are all in short supply and people used to learn it from the churches – I learnt it at Sunday school. Where do you learn it now? I don’t know.’

Yes. In addition, and often overlooked is how the habit of reading novels used to provide a great training in sympathy and empathy. This is because overall novels required readers to see the world from the emotional and intellectual views of a variety of characters. This is well exemplified in the great and popular sentimental novelists such as Austen and Dickens. Novels were tremendous civilizers. By the same token, films and tv do not do this, or do it very poorly.

Laws do not stop people taking drugs.
Capital punishment does not stop people taking drugs.
People often take drugs to self-medicate a mental illness that orthodox drugs have failed to treat successfully.
If you have never been in this part of society you cannot really know what it is like.
I know many people who take every type of drug and still work and lead fulfilling lives.Yes, even heroin.
The trouble making drug takers e.g. violent thieves certainly exist but are usually the only known drug takers as they do not care who knows.
The secret drug takers are an unknown quantity.Who wants to be shunned by society for one's own decisions on one's own life style?
All the decriminalisers want is for drug taking not to be a criminal act . At the very least it is one's right to do what ones likes with one's own body.
We have a drug epidemic - decriminalising could hardly make it worse. Everybody knows the harmful effects of drugs and some take heed and some do not.
As a drug-worker friend often says,'Drugs are a subject that everybody has a strong opinion on but few people really know much about'

Peter Hitchens: “It occurs to me - though of course it isn’t true - that if MI5 wanted to discredit any honest movement against mass immigration, the cleverest thing it could do would be to set up something called, say, the ‘British Patriotic Party’, and staff it with (a) Jew-haters, (b) racialists and (c) Holocaust deniers.”
(My (a)(b)(c) added)

Actually, this plan would not be very clever after all, as there are plenty of examples of (a) (b) and (c) and they get away with it all the time, so it is not these characteristics that will turn voters against a Party, it is merely whether the TV media wish to portray them as such.

For example:

(a) Jew-haters. The BBC makes a constant stream of programmes against Israel, and are as devoted to this cause as they are to AGW, drugs and crime.

(b) Jew-haters. Parliament gives our taxes as foreign aid to those who are in conflict with Israel over Judea and Jerusalem. The irony is that Nick Griffin said on Question time that his Party are the only one to fully support Israel’s right to fully defend itself against terrorism.

(c) Racialists. The BBC constantly denigrates this country, its history, and its culture. On Radio 4 the term ‘Daily Mail Reader’ is used as a term of abuse and we know which sub-section of which race they mean. You can say “inbred upper class twits” with impunity which shows that racialism itself is not an offence, just that some forms of racialism are more equal than others. Other things we can say freely are ‘white people have no right to own land in Africa’ and ‘little Englanders’. But if you make a racist comment about a gypsy in a blog you can be arrested. So, racialism itself is not an offence, so long as you direct it at one of the races that the Left hates (‘inbred rednecks’ is also allowed, and ‘white trash’).

(d) Holocaust deniers. Which is worse, denying an undeniable historical event such as the holocaust, or planning the next one? Whilst you can be arrested for denying the holocaust, there are is a group that repeatedly and openly says they want to drive the Jews into the sea, yet they get a sympathetic TV media.

Mr Stone appears to suggest that I am an employee or servant of the Security Service, engaging in systematic dishonesty on their behalf.

He uses these words:' You’d scarcely be the first newspaper journalist to be run by the security services' and ' it occurs to me – since of course it is perfectly true – that an MI5 anxious to ensure we continue to believe we live in a society which protects free speech would almost certainly staff newspapers with faux-conservative 'assets' to lead people up blind alleys'.

I must ask him either to substantiate this allegation with facts, or to withdraw it and offer an unreserved apology.

If he does neither then, under the usual rules, he will no longer be welcome here.

I think a week should be enough. I will listen to any reasonable request for more time but given his confident tone, I imagine he has the evidence at his fingertips.

'It occurs to me - though of course it isn’t true - that if MI5 wanted to discredit any honest movement against mass immigration, the cleverest thing it could do would be to set up something called, say, the ‘British Patriotic Party’, and staff it with Jew-haters, racialists and Holocaust deniers.'

And it occurs to me – since of course it is perfectly true – that an MI5 anxious to ensure we continue to believe we live in a society which protects free speech would almost certainly staff newspapers with faux-conservative 'assets' to lead people up blind alleys about the effectiveness of the party system, or oppose repatriation on ‘moral grounds’ because the other deception they peddle, about the irrelevance of racial differences, allows them to insist that an Englishman can come from Tunbridge or Timbuktu.

You’d scarcely be the first newspaper journalist to be run by the security services (think Ian Fleming and a score of others less well-known). Speaking as a racialist myself, that is to say one genuinely led by the facts, by observation, by reason and the lessons of history rather than pretending to be, I’d say it’s how all security services operate to discredit truth-tellers.

Trotsky ordered the cadres to ignore rational argument and to make truth-telling distasteful to people. Equalitarian dogma (disguised as christianity?) could thereby pass itself off as ‘authentic’ conservatism which, because of its ideologically driven repudiation of biology, would fail to conserve a damned thing.

Again I must ask if you know what a nation actually is Mr Hitchens, you who boast about your grasp of history, and wonder what on earth gives you the right to sneer at Cameron when you display not a shred of integrity yourself on this subject, since it’s plain you know the truth deep down?

Here's a quote from an October 2011 edition of the Independent: 'Marjan Heuving of the Netherlands' Trimbos Institute, which studies mental health and addiction, said there is a growing body of evidence that THC causes mental illnesses.
She said it stands to reason "the more THC the body takes in, the more the impact."'
So, smoking skunk is worse for your health than smoking the solid type, resin, because skunk is a lot stronger.

My sincere apologies for that, which I do think looking back was very badly worded. I do believe it is lamentable that he met his fate in this gruesome manner, particularly as it deprived him of any right to a trial process that even Ceausescu was given. So yes, the manner of Gaddafi's death is definitely as reprehensible as other less than worthy figures (in my estimation) who met a similar fate but I have no problems condemning the manner of their demise. Rather that Gaddafi's demise from power is something few tears will be shed over just as much as we are horrified by it. I stand corrected as such.

I learn that the leader ( unelected ) of the National Transition Council ( unelected ) has stated that the law of Libya will be based on 'Sharia'. Gadaffi didn't allow polygamy but it seems it will be allowed now.
I wonder if Libya will be quietly forgotten about in due course by our political class controlled media..

@Mike Barnes
I don't think this 'achilles heel' is is the objection you make out.

Sure if we legalised on Monday I'm not saying the violence would stop Tuesday, but over time market pressures of quality, cost, advertising, trust and reliable supply chain logistics would drive the current cartels out of business; or force them to legitimise their operations. Either way the level of violence dwindles.

I think you're being short sighted in talking about our 'lilly livered justice system' and '44 nationalities' this is not about the UK this is a global problem and this would need to be implimented on a global scale for it to be truely effective. But as Mr Hitchens says you shouldn't not do something just because it's hard (I'm paraphrasing somewhat...)

Your solution of destroying the farms seems more impractical as I just don't believe we could afford the resource to acheive it. I believe the US spent $15bn fighting the 'drug war' last year, and that gets you the status quo. How much more would we need to spend - year on year - to obliterate all growing and manufacturing sites? Ten times this, a hundred times this. I believe that money could be better spent elsewhere, and bring greater benefits to society, than stopping the relatively small (compared to obesity) health problems caused by illigal drugs.

In answer to 'David V.', who asks :'What is to lament about Gaddafi's demise? '
The answer is simple: The manner of it.
If he is not revolted by a mob lynching(whoever is its target) then I am unable to help him further.

What is to lament about Gaddafi's demise? He overthrew a monarchy and established a system entirely of his own design whose reality bore no resemblance whatsoever to fanciful theories in his Green Book which itself carried the same DNA as Communism and Nazism. Ironic for a country that had been victims of a fascist regime, that the "anti-imperialist liberator" implemented a regime that had all of its most odious features.

He not only gave support to the IRA, but either courted or was courted by the lunatic fringe of the West, from the perceived polar opposites- both extreme left and extreme right, including people who need no introduction to any of us. What those peple have to say now, God only knows.

Chris Berry
If I had the chance to work abroad for a few decades knowing I would end up with the chance to build my own home mortgage free or have a property portfolio in my original homeland ( this is the case for many) I would perhaps do so. These immigrants aren't altruistic they are taking great advantage of a system I am entirely opposed to, a system that allows competition for wages, overcrowding, export of British wealth, distrust / dislike of immigrants, over burdening of our NHS etc etc, all of this needless if our welfare state was run efficiently and the way it was originally meant to be run, and all our able bodied unable to avoid work.
Your last sentence rather contradicts your post in that you state that Boston is in a 'bad situation'. You are correct of course and there is only one solution, repatriation. The few that contribute in my opinion do not compensate for the majority that take, and those that take give genuine contributing immigrants a diservice.

@ Ian Scott. Your argument this time is more substantive . But has an achilles heel . If as you suppose organised big Pharma took control in growing, quality control, and supply. Those now involved would just shrug their collective shoulders, pack up and become honest worthwhile citizens of said countries.
Or use whatever power they do have to stop, big pharma taking control.
If the latter was the case .Then how would a lilly livered justice system like ours make them stop.
On the other hand if the big Pharma did suceed . The same question arises. Would they just give up and become model citizens. Again I think not. The opportunities for crime of every kind are rife here,because our justice system is poor, and our prisons ,hotels .At least for the foriegn criminals over here, ( 44 nationalities arrested during the summer riots alone ).
That is the weakness your idea doesn't take account of . If on the other hand we destroyed those places these crops are grown. And I mean destoyed like Gaddafi's Cities were. Then the price hike would wipe out 95% of the takers chances of a score, week one .But the fact it hasn't happened really proves the power these gangsters have . They are major stockholders in a global business. In a New World Global empire friendly garden . Which they exploit. And national government shy away from for reasons that even fools must see.

Isn't it time for you to reconsider your opinions re: the UN. Prior your implications had been that the UN existed as some sort of developing world junta, allowing the developed world to preside over certain panels and use it as a platform to criticise Israel/ 'the west'.

However, whilst these may be the crumbs from the masters tables, what is surely self evident is that we have had 3/4/5 wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Pakistan all acquiesced to by the UN, yet all in violation of it. Certainly nobody has been penalised for such wars. The evidences are surely clearer that the UN is an organisation formed to reflect the victors of the 2nd world war (most notably the British, Americans and French) and use it as a statutory body to reflect their desires etc.

In Libya, we have clearly seen people who would otherwise be called 'terrorists', being given the keys to the oil rich state at the expense of everything else (i.e. 'protecting civilians'). The attempt was clearly always to eradicate Gaddafi, which is itself illegal. There is also no justification for the drone wars America is fighting in Pakistan and Yemen. Afghanistan was also about regime change and ditto for Iraq (1 million killed due to war according to Lancet, 500,000 children dead due to UN sanctions prior to second Gulf War admitted by Madeline Albright).

Mr. Hitchens continues: 'And if a drug is legal, it will be more widely used, by more people.'

Not if decriminalisation is coupled with treatment, as in Portugal, where the use of hard drugs has gone down since decriminalisation. But of course, given an ideological commitment to the idea that taking drugs is simply a selfish choice, treatment is an unpalatable suggestion.

It's absurd to suggest that decriminalisation would make the use of drugs as widespread as that of the legal drug alcohol. We're not proposing that they be sold on the free market as alcohol is (or I'm not at least), with millions of pounds poured into advertising them. Some, if not all, would be prescription only, and they'd be regulated according to their harmfulness.

To compare the current system with the licensing and anti-cigarette laws is also nonsensical. Both of those examples are of legalised regulation. Certainly the latter (and perhaps the former was, I'm not sure) has been very successful. In neither case is the drug sold unregulated by criminals.

'the legalisation of alcohol and cigarettes has not prevented the growth of illegal gangs'

On a purely logical basis it must have done, since the demand for these drugs on the black market isn't as great, and as such there are fewer gangs selling them. Supply, demand, etc.

'It is too. And he doesn’t have any evidence.'

Well, what about the fact, as I've mentioned twice, that Iran executes drug dealers, and occasionally drug users, and yet has one of the highest levels of heroin addiction in the world. Would Mr. Hitchens care to comment?

Gaddafi's death like a dog at the hands of a hate-crazed mob is frankly no more than Io be expected. Did we really think that, once captiured, the armed mob which toppled him would behave any better? This, after all, is the Middle East, not the dinner tables of Islington.

This is what happens when Civilisation breaks down. If we think that we are immune to such things in this country we should think again. Those denizens of Islington, Hampstead, St John's Wood and the other haunts of BBC - type folk are doing their best to destroy our Civilisation are they not?

But vile though the manner if Gaddafi's death was, was his murder really much worse than the death planned for him by Nato?

It is believed that Gaddafi's location was pinpointed by Nato intelligence officers after voice recognition technology picked up his voice in a satellite phone call. This intelligence breakthrough enabled Nato to train a US drone and eavesdropping aircraft on his base in Sirte to ensure he could not escape.

The motor column he was in was bombed shortly before he was found by his opponents,

Why is it OK to try to despatch Gaddafi by bombing but not by a bullet through the head? Isn't the only real difference the distance between the killer and the killed?

Interestingly the Mexican Greens favour bringing back the death penalty last extensively used, I believe, during the Mexican Revolution. Not all green parties are leftist, while other Green parties (like Australia's) are actually Watermelons. The German ÖDP are another "Green Right" party whose stronghold is, not surprisingly, in Bavaria.

I recall a cartoon showing Mugabe ranting about liberation from colonialism, while simultaneously allowing China to impose its own neo-colonialism. And China's own projects in Africa are clearly more unpopular (Michael Sata being elected in Zambia exploiting that sentiment, and a Namibian opposition MP also taking a strong stand), making business with the West more palatable in comparison.

Interestingly, Zambia's vice-president Guy Scott becomes the first white person elected to a position of executive authority in post-colonial/majority rule Southern Africa. And that does have a certain symbolism as Scott himself says, the end of the "post-Colonial era" of the last half a century.

Mr Hitchens I'm less interested in the harm caused to users by poor quality control of batches of illegal drugs and much more concerned with the harm caused by the criminals who manufacture, market, supply and protect their business. I mentioned Mexico in a previous comment and it's the figure of 10,000 deaths per year caused by the drug cartels fighting amongst themselves and with the authorities that makes me question the rationale of prohibition.

Would a legalised, heavily regulated drug industry - monopolised by a few big multinationals as tobacco & alcohol are - pose as much a threat to innocent bystanders and ruin tens of thousands of families lives the way the current, or a more harsh, regime would. Of course it wouldn't.

Would it lead to an increase in recreational drug use? Maybe slightly - you probably think more so but then that's just your lame opinion - but would the damage caused by this outweigh the thousands of dead and maimed, the innocents caught in the cross fire, the parents identifying their children's mutilated bodies; no it wouldn't.

Deaths caused by illegal drugs in the UK are around 1/10th of this figure, a figure that could be reduced by removing demand through education. I'd swap the greater harm caused by the drug cartels for the public health issue caused by legalisation.

You mention that alcohol & tobacco also has it's share of criminal gangs trying to avoid tax and make money and you argue that they too are capable of murder. That's a terribly weak argument, they may well be capable of murder but they're not doing it on the scale of South American drug lords are they? So there's a direct comparison: Illegal drug production leads to thousands of people murdered, avoiding duty on legal drugs leads to less, a lot less, hardly any in fact.

A shed load of misery is more than 10,000 dead Mexicans, consider yourself calibrated.

You've no evidence that harsh prison sentences would decrease illegal drug use, it's just your opinion. I'd be happy to help you set up an experiment that looked at the risk versus reward choices made by people but I think that's probably left to far cleverer people than you or I who do that for a living. However maybe you could persuade your newspaper to fund a study (Search risk and reward in Google scholar - a lot of work has already been done, we'd be standing on the shoulders of giants). If the results went your way you could try arguing your opinion using facts & data instead of rhetoric. I, for one, would find it more persuasive.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.